Plastic balls debacle (to all TDs out there)

wturber wrote: I disagree that the Nittaku Premium 40+ ( NP 40+) is inconsistent in its play.  While I don't like it, it is plays very consistently..... Further, many players assumed that "plastic = plastic"  and bought the horrible Nittaku SHA 40+ balls at high prices and high failure rates.  What a waste of money.  We announced a change back to celluloid a few weeks ago.

I haven't had a chance to play with NP40+ - I am told they might be sold to people who registered for Nationals but I have yet to even see one of them. I was told that they are much better than SHA (which. i agree with you are pretty bad, though not as bad as JOOLA Super-P).

But this could be one of the main problems!  Imagine that you are a player who goes to TT tournaments from time to time. In the past you didn't really care that much if TD mandated use of DHS*** or Nittaku Premium or Gambler Platinum*** or DoubleFish*** or Butterfly*** or JOOLA Gold*** etc - because they were all pretty decent balls, but also - WHAT IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT! - they played more or less the same, and you didn't have a problem training with, say, Butterfly *** and then coming to the tournament and playing with JOOLA Gold.

Now - even if you train with plastic - the difference is so much worse that it makes people wince. It seems that instead of having two or three categories as we used to (3-star, 2-star, training balls) we now have as many as 10 categories (or more)

Celluloid 3-star
Celluloid 2-star
Celluloid 1-star

Plastic seamed 3-star better quality (Andro, Kinson, DF)
Plastic seamed 3-star worse quality (JOOLA, Nittaku SHA, DHS)
Plastic seamless better quality (XSF)
Plastic seamless worse quality (Palio)
Plastic seamed 2-star
...

etc etc.

So when the players will train with XSF and they will come to the tournament where they have to play with Nittaku SHA - the difference will be as bad as with switching from celluloid to the same crappy plastic.

Regardless of whether you agree with me on which brands are better and which are worse, I am sure you can agree with general statement about diversity (or to use better word, inconsistency) of the field.

And that's really bad.

NextLevel wrote: Tom, you make it sound like celluloid balls were not essentially commodities before the plastic ball came out. Luxury cars are not commodities so I don't accept your analogy. The most expensive 3* ball played marginally and debatably better in the 40mm ball era and it didn't have great durability (if we agree it was the Nittaku). You really should get an XuShaofa Ball and log your own comments. This discussion is now entering Mastermind territory...

As I just posted, it would be fine if the entire USA standardized on XSF - but that is not going to happen. TDs and USATT around the country will use 5-6 different types of 3-star plastic (even if generally we agree that XSF is somewhat superior). I am not even talking about JOOLA or Butterfly or Stiga or Gambler sponsored tournaments

And the problem which will arise from that is that the difference between XSF and DHS, or XSF and JOOLA is much worse than the difference between any decent 3-star celluloid balls which are regularly used at advanced-level tournaments around the country.

And that means players will suffer from training with one of them and then playing a tourney with another.

JimT, the divergence in balls really has its source in DHS largely and DFish secondarily. Most clubs are tied to an equipment sponsor (or more). DHS makes the balls for all the ITTF pro tours and for that reason, Joola and Nittaku branded its ball. If DHS changed to the XSF ball tomorrow, everyone would follow. It's not quite as complicated as you are making out, even if your point is valid. As I have said many times, what ever the pros use will filter down to the amateur levels and dominate the tournaments as lower levels because of aspiring players.

JimT wrote: So when the players will train with XSF and they will come to the tournament where they have to play with Nittaku SHA - the difference will be as bad as with switching from celluloid to the same crappy plastic. Regardless of whether you agree with me on which brands are better and which are worse, I am sure you can agree with general statement about diversity (or to use better word, inconsistency) of the field. And that's really bad.

NextLevel wrote: JimT, the divergence in balls really has its source in DHS largely and DFish secondarily. Most clubs are tied to an equipment sponsor (or more). DHS makes the balls for all the ITTF pro tours and for that reason, Joola and Nittaku branded its ball. If DHS changed to the XSF ball tomorrow, everyone would follow. It's not quite as complicated as you are making out, even if your point is valid. As I have said many times, what ever the pros use will filter down to the amateur levels and dominate the tournaments as lower levels because of aspiring players.

Edited by wturber - 11/21/2014 at 2:47pm

Since the standard cost of living in China is lower than Europe or the USA, how are the Chinese dealing with the new cost of the plastic ball ?

LUCKYLOOP wrote: Since the standard cost of living in China is lower than Europe or the USA, how are the Chinese dealing with the new cost of the plastic ball ?

wturber wrote: LUCKYLOOP wrote: Since the standard cost of living in China is lower than Europe or the USA, how are the Chinese dealing with the new cost of the plastic ball ? My bet is that they are playing with celluloid ... as God intended the game to be played.  ;^)

Well the national and provincial teams etc will be playing with the plastic DHS probably, but I do not think the players will be paying for them.

BTW I really like JimT's argument for standardization but frankly not for the NP 40+ standard. I think the XSF balls are fine to play with, but you know that Joola sponsored tournaments will play Joola plastic and USATT will play NP 40+. These are set in stone due to money-the money of "the man" and not the money of the little man.

vanjr wrote: wturber wrote: LUCKYLOOP wrote: Since the standard cost of living in China is lower than Europe or the USA, how are the Chinese dealing with the new cost of the plastic ball ? My bet is that they are playing with celluloid ... as God intended the game to be played.  ;^) Well the national and provincial teams etc will be playing with the plastic DHS probably, but I do not think the players will be paying for them. BTW I really like JimT's argument for standardization but frankly not for the NP 40+ standard. I think the XSF balls are fine to play with, but you know that Joola sponsored tournaments will play Joola plastic and USATT will play NP 40+. These are set in stone due to money-the money of "the man" and not the money of the little man.

And that's why standardization is not going to happen. Nor do I think it is a good idea anyway. But at least with celluloid you could be more or less sure that if you trained with decent 3-star balls then playing with some other brand's balls at the tournament was not going to affect your game more than by a percentage point.

beeray1 wrote: I remember hearing Samsonov talk about the new balls back when it was just whispers. He said that a large percentage of the errors professional players make in the 40mm celluloid era was due to the balls already, and was hopeful that the plastic ball would move past this problem. It sounds like the opposite has happened, so I can't imagine if pros made lots of errors based on balls already what they are going through now.

JimT wrote: I am just saying that UNTIL THEY ARE GOOD AND CONSISTENT QUALITY, why would TDs even consider holding tournaments with these balls? It's not like you are really preparing anyone for Nationals by making them play with a DHS 40+ ball... right?

JimT wrote: That is TD's bread and butter - more participants - and I really don't understand why they would be so easy to switch to plastic before it's anywhere near celluloid in quality and pricing. They will lose some visible percentage of attendance.

At my clubs, the demand is from top-down - first from those fighting for a place in the US team & there on down. In fact, here it is the opposite - the TDs / league managers & club owners have been forced to move to plastic because customers indicated that they have less inclination to participate otherwise. What ball is better to play with is of less importance here than trying to get a leg up on the competition.

Why would be apply pressure on companies that actually make good polyballs?  XSF and NP40+? It would be bad to punish them, especially XSF which is not that big and probably has a lot staked on this.

The pressure needs to be applied selectively.

tom wrote: iakovka wrote: tom wrote: "I actually disagree that XSF is noticeably inferior to celluloid.  I can imagine another universe where those balls were made before celluloid and people wondered why one should ever use celluloid. " NL, are you saying the XSF is better, last longer, and cheaper than the quality cell balls? Comparable to Nittaku celluloid in price (already, and with time I belive they will be cheaper), last longer, more round. About "better" it is rather a subjective parameter b/c am sure my racket is better than yours :))) lol Iakovka,  are you trying to be funny or just like to argue ?   Paddle Palace: 12 Nittaku Premium, cell:25.95;plastic 33.95.  Where did you see people say plastic balls last longer?  To the contrary I have broken more than 1 plastic ball in a practice session.  I define "better" (balls) as enjoyment of the sport.

Edited by iakovka - 11/21/2014 at 5:41pm

Tom,

What about XuShaofa's 3* ITTF approved ball doesn't allow us to compare it to Nittaku Premium?  Your comments have been very unclear and I just gave up discussing it.

Baal points out that this is possibly the most durable ball he has ever used in 40 years of playing.  What about that is not deserving of note?

Table tennis balls were essentially commodities before the plastic revolution - did anyone really care what brand they used to the point that they couldn't switch?


Edited by NextLevel - 11/21/2014 at 6:08pm

tom wrote: NextLevel wrote: Tom, What about XuShaofa's 3* ITTF approved ball doesn't allow us to compare it to Nittaku Premium?  Your comments have been very unclear and I just gave up discussing it. Baal points out that this is possibly the most durable ball he has ever used in 40 years of playing.  What about that is not deserving of note? Table tennis balls were essentially commodities before the plastic revolution - did anyone really care what brand they used to the point that they couldn't switch? NL, ok let's start from scratch.  why are Butterfly products  more expensive than other comparable ones?  some will list the quality differences but I don't think anyone could fully justify the huge differences.  at the end each brand will charge whatever they can command. so when I suggested to compare plastic to cell balls of the same brand only, to see which kind is more expensive, it is just that, in order to remove the unjustifiable elements like brand cache.  The discussion is to reach a conclusion on whether the plastic or cell ball is being charged a higher price.  I think only  comparing balls of the same brand will give you a fair conclusion.  if you can't agree with that then the discussion ends

Only if the balls were not essentially commodities!  If they were commodities, then you can look at whether a ball compares to the extremes.  XuShaofa is competitive with 3* ITTF cells at all prices, regardlss of brand or quality.